[PATCH 1/2] mtd: brcmnand: Add check for erased page bitflips

[Boris Brezillon]

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:14:40 -0700
Brian Norris <computersforpeace at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 12:46:18PM -0400, Kamal Dasu wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Boris Brezillon
> > <boris.brezillon at free-electrons.com> wrote:  
> > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:21:24 -0400
> > > Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev at gmail.com> wrote:  
> 
> > >> +     if (ret)
> > >> +             return ret;
> > >> +
> > >> +     for (i = 0; i < chip->ecc.steps; i++, oob += sas) {
> > >> +             unsigned int bitflips = 0;
> > >> +
> > >> +             bitflips += oob_nbits - bitmap_weight(oob, oob_nbits);
> > >> +             bitflips += data_nbits - bitmap_weight(buf, data_nbits);
> > >> +
> > >> +             buf += chip->ecc.size;
> > >> +             addr += chip->ecc.size;  
> > >
> > > You seem to duplicate nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() here. Do you have a
> > > good reason for doing that?
> > >  
> > 
> > Hmmm I see what you are saying. Let me try setting the
> > NAND_ECC_GENERIC_ERASED_CHECK option and see if we can get away
> > without having to read raw.  I will have to test and make sure on
> > uncorrectable error the hw leaves the return page data buffers and oob
> > buffers in raw state.  
> 
> I'm quite sure you can't make use of NAND_ECC_GENERIC_ERASED_CHECK
> unless you do a substantial rewrite; brcmnand doesn't use any of the
> nand_base ecc.read_{page,subpage} callbacks.
> 
> > If that works as expected I will get rid of this duplication and send
> > a revised change which shall make use of the
> > NAND_ECC_GENERIC_ERASED_CHECK option.  
> 
> I suspect he was just suggesting calling the
> nand_check_erased_ecc_chunk() helper instead of doing your own
> bitmap_weight() calls.

Exactly.


-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com